Promotion (269, 270, 271, 945, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 666,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Promotion
Total judgments found: 166
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 3403
119th Session, 2015
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge the decisions to reject their claims against the list of staff members promoted in 2011.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; promotion;
Judgment 3370
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who performed duties at a higher level than his grade, impugns the decision not to grant him a promotion and acting allowance, and partially succeeds on the basis that the Organisation breached its duty of care.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"It is well settled in judgments of the Tribunal that it will not order the promotion or reclassification of a staff member, as such decisions are discretionary and involve specialist evaluation (see, for example, Judgment 2706, consideration 14)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706
Keywords:
discretion; promotion; reclassification;
Judgment 3321
117th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s decision not to grant him personal promotion.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has established that, by its very nature, the decision to grant personal promotion lies at the discretion of the executive head of an international organisation and is therefore subject to only limited review. For this reason, it may be quashed only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1815, under 3, 2668, under 11, or 3084, under 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1815, 2668, 3084
Keywords:
discretion; promotion;
Judgment 3283
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenged the decision not to promote him earlier to grade A3.
Consideration 19
Extract:
"It is clear that Section III.C of Circular No. 271 supports rather than detracts from the principle of equal treatment for all persons once they are recruited or promoted to a category A post. The basic requirement is that once recruited to that category, all persons, whether recruited externally with no prior EPO experience, or promoted internally, with prior EPO experience, no past EPO category B or C experience will be taken into account for subsequent promotion within category. All persons who are within any specific A category are placed on an equal seniority footing. Their promotion will be determined by the relevant years of experience within the specific category and their career path, average or rapid, and their performance as reflected in their appraisal reports. It will also depend upon the existence of a vacant post, and in accordance with other criteria that are specified, for example in Article 49(1) of the Service Regulations of the EPO. In the end, promotion is to be “by selection” on a competitive basis and within the discretion of the President on the recommendation of the Promotion Board."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Section III.C of Circular No. 271; Article 49(1) of the Service Regulations
Keywords:
equal treatment; promotion; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; condition; discretion; promotion;
Judgment 3280
116th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests that the 2010 promotion exercise, which was allegedly cancelled for budgetary reasons, be held.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant contests the decision of Eurocontrol not to organize a promotion exercise for 2010.
"[A]lthough it is debatable in principle, the general postponement of a promotion round cannot be ruled out completely when Eurocontrol’s financial situation requires it in exceptional circumstances. The explanations furnished by Eurocontrol, the verisimilitude of which the Tribunal does not doubt, show that such circumstances existed in the instant case."
Keywords:
condition; organisation's interest; promotion;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant contests the decision of Eurocontrol not to organize a promotion exercise for 2010.
"Her cause of action in challenging the refusal to hold that promotion round cannot depend on the potential outcome of the round."
Keywords:
cause of action; promotion; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3279
116th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints regarding the classification of the complainants’ duties following an administrative reform were dismissed by the Tribunal.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
career; complaint dismissed; promotion;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainants contest the decision of Eurocontrol not to organize a promotion exercise for 2010.
"The Tribunal notes that as the decision was justified and is to be considered a proper exercise of discretion, and as the suspension of promotion exercises was planned for only one year, it is unfortunate that some staff were negatively affected by the decision but recognises that Eurocontrol must decide based on the overall well-being of the Organisation as a whole and cannot base its decisions only on the specific and particular situations of individual staff members."
Keywords:
discretion; organisation's interest; promotion;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes that consistent case law states that staff members are not entitled to promotions, as promotions are discretionary decisions (see Judgments 263, under 2, 304, under 1, 940, under 9, 1016, under 3, 1025, under 4, 1207, under 8, 1670, under 14, 2060, under 4, 2835, under 5, and 2944, under 22). In the present case, the decision was made not to hold a promotion round for 2010 due to the budgetary constraints. The Board proposed the relaunch of the promotion exercises in 2011, as mentioned above. Considering Eurocontrol’s intention to hold a promotion round for 2011 subject to the availability of budgetary funds, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the lack of a 2010 promotion round is not unlawful [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 263, 304, 940, 1016, 1025, 1207, 1670, 2060, 2835, 2944
Keywords:
case law; claim; complaint; decision; discretion; joinder; judicial review; promotion; submissions;
Judgment 3266
116th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenged the decision not to promote him on the ground that the standard used was too demanding (exceptional performance).
Considerations 13, 14 and 15
Extract:
"At no point in the guidelines was there either expressly or impliedly a requirement that the individual who was being considered for promotion had to, in order to secure promotion, have performed their work or discharge their responsibilities in an exceptional manner.
It is true that twice in the Guidelines [...] the word “exceptionally” appeared. However, its use served the purpose of stating that promotion on merit would not be a usual or ordinary feature of employment within WIPO. That would doubtless be achieved by applying some rigour in the assessment process when applying the specified criteria. It would also be achieved if, as a practical matter (and as contemplated by paragraph 13 of the Guidelines [...]), a person was to be considered for promotion only if recommended by a supervisor and that supervisors exercise restraint in making such recommendations.
In the present case, the application of a test or standard that the complainant had to have discharged his responsibilities in an exceptional manner before he was promoted informed the decision-making of the Panel and the Appeal Board. Critically, for present purposes, it was also the test or standard used by the Director General in deciding, effectively, that the complainant should not be promoted [...]. It was a test or standard that misstated, and almost certainly overstated (in the sense that was too demanding), the criteria in the Guidelines."
Keywords:
criteria; promotion; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; flaw; promotion; recommendation;
Judgment 3256
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the fact that he was not promoted in 2006 in accordance with the "age-50 rule", which had been abolished as from 1 January 2005.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
acquired right; complaint dismissed; intervention; promotion;
Judgment 3191
114th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants successfully challenge a recruitment procedure which they considered as flawed.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The EPO’s position grounded on a distinction between an appointment and a promotion is fundamentally flawed. An appointment is simply the assignment of an individual to a particular position or post. A promotion is the assignment of an individual to a higher position or rank. The fact that a so called appointment process is used to make a selection or that the assignment is called an appointment does not exclude the fact that it may also be a promotion by virtue of the fact that it also involves the attainment of a higher position or rank or, in this context, grade."
Keywords:
appointment; competition; executive head; flaw; promotion; promotion board; selection board; vacancy; vacancy notice;
Judgment 3165
114th Session, 2013
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the evaluation of his seniority following the creation of a new grades structure.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2490
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; promotion; seniority;
Judgment 3102
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
career; complaint allowed; decision quashed; promotion;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[E]ven if a staff member may claim no right to promotion, promotion procedures must be conducted with due diligence and as swiftly as the normal workings of an administration permit. There is nothing to justify delaying for years a promotion which the staff member may legitimately expect and which naturally has a direct impact on his or her career prospects, unless this delay may be attributed to a fault on the part of the person concerned during the procedure (see Judgment 2706, under 11 and 12)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706
Keywords:
administrative delay; career; consequence; delay; duty of care; exception; misconduct; official; procedure before the tribunal; promotion; right;
Judgment 3084
112th Session, 2012
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; promotion; reclassification; staff representative;
Judgment 3059
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; promotion;
Judgment 3006
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
Assessment of merit is an exercise that involves a value judgement. It is usual to refer to decisions or recommendations involving a value judgement as 'discretionary', signifying that persons may quite reasonably hold different views on the matter in issue and, if the issue involves a comparison with other persons, they may also hold different views on their comparative rating. The nature of a value judgement means that point-to-point comparisons are not necessarily decisive. Moreover, because of the nature of a value judgement, the grounds on which a decision involving a judgement of that kind may be reviewed are limited to those applicable to discretionary decisions. Thus, the Tribunal will only interfere if 'the decision was taken without authority; if it was based on an error of law or fact, a material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority' (see Judgment 2834, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834
Keywords:
abuse of power; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; performance report; procedural flaw; promotion; rating; work appraisal;
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The principle of equality requires that all candidates in a given year be assessed by reference to staff reports for the same period. It is clear from Judgment 2221 that the principle also requires that if the 'merits' of a candidate for promotion are subsequently upgraded, the question of promotion must be considered on the basis of what would have happened if the upgraded marking had been considered previously."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2221
Keywords:
candidate; equal treatment; performance report; promotion; rating; work appraisal;
Judgment 2944
109th Session, 2010
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
"[A]ccording to firm precedent, international civil servants do not have a right to promotion (see, for example, Judgments 1207, under 8, or 2006, under 12) and [...] decisions in this domain, which are taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organisation, are subject to only limited judicial review (see, for example, Judgments 1670, under 14, or 2221, under 9)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1207, 1670, 2006, 2221
Keywords:
case law; decision; discretion; executive head; judicial review; limits; official; promotion; right;
Judgment 2938
109th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal has determined that a staff member on leave on personal grounds is ipso facto no longer performing the duties of his former post and that, although during this leave he continues to be an official, the rights arising from the performance of his duties - remuneration, promotion, guarantee of employment, etc. - are suspended until he is reinstated. In the interests of the service the Agency may therefore use the vacant post (see Judgment 416, under 2). At the end of leave on personal grounds the employer nonetheless has a duty to reinstate the official provided that the two cumulative conditions laid down by [...] Article 40 [of the General Conditions of Employment Governing Servants at the Eurocontrol Maastricht Centre] are met: firstly, there must be a vacant post and, secondly, the staff member must be qualified for it (see Judgment 2034, under 11). This duty must be fulfilled promptly and with due regard for the dignity of the staff member concerned and the principle of good faith."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 40 of the General Conditions of Employment Governing Servants at the Eurocontrol Maastricht Centre
ILOAT Judgment(s): 416, 2034
Keywords:
accumulation; assignment; compassionate leave; condition; consequence; general principle; good faith; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; period; post held by the complainant; promotion; qualifications; reinstatement; respect for dignity; right; safeguard; salary; security of tenure; special leave; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; vacancy;
Judgment 2906
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"Although [...] the decision [to promote the complaintant to grade A5] did not create any rights because it stemmed from a factual error, it could be reversed only on certain conditions dictated by the principle of good faith. This principle requires, firstly, that the power to reverse a decision resting on a factual error must be exercised as soon as the competent authority notices the error in question and not at a later date chosen at its own convenience. Secondly, this principle requires that if the person concerned by a decision resting on a factual error has not contributed to this error, he or she must not suffer any unfavourable consequences from the application of the decision in question during the period before it was reversed. In particular, it is thus essential that any remuneration received by the official concerned on the basis of this decision should not give rise to reimbursement or any other form of restitution."
Keywords:
condition; consequence; decision; good faith; individual decision; mistake of fact; promotion; right; staff member's interest;
Consideration 7
Extract:
Following his promotion to grade A5, the complainant was informed that his promotion to that grade was due to a clerical error and that the Administration's intention was to promote him to grade A4(2). Thus, his promotion to grade A5 was reversed. He challenged that decision but the President decided to maintain it. The Tribunal found that his promotion to grade A5 stemmed from a purely factual error and not from the Administration's genuine intention and that it could therefore be reversed. It nevertheless awarded him compensation for moral injury.
"The nub of this case is whether the President could lawfully reverse the decision [...] to promote the complainant to grade A5 [...]. Since the Service Regulations do not contain any specific provisions governing the conditions for the reversal or revocation of administrative decisions, this question can be settled only by referring to the general principles of law applied by the Tribunal."
Keywords:
decision; individual decision; intention of parties; mistake of fact; no provision; promotion; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 16
Extract:
"Even though [...] the Organisation was entitled to reverse the decision wrongly promoting the complainant to grade A5, the factual error on which its initial decision rested was nonetheless negligent. By submitting a draft decision whose content had not been properly checked for signature by the President, the services of the Organisation displayed gross negligence, which is even less excusable in view of the fact that individual decisions on promotion are of a particularly sensitive nature. The complainant obviously had cause to be extremely disappointed because, having been notified of this decision, he was then told that it had been reversed and that he had been promoted simply to grade A(2). By proceeding in this manner the EPO breached the duty which the Tribunal's case law establishes for every international organisation not to cause its staff unnecessary injury (see, for example, Judgments 1526, under 3, or 2007, under 11)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1526, 2007
Keywords:
decision; individual decision; injury; mistake of fact; negligence; organisation's duties; promotion; staff member's interest;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Since the decision to promote the complainant to grade A5 stemmed from a clerical error, i.e. a purely factual error, and not from a genuine intention of its author, the Tribunal considers that it did not create rights for the person concerned and that it could therefore be subsequently reversed.
Indeed, one of the essential requirements of any administrative decision is that it should be consistent with its author's intention. Consequently, where that is not the case, it is important that the impact of the decision should be limited as much as possible, even though its existence cannot be denied. Similar considerations led the Tribunal to set aside the application of a decision resting on a purely factual error in an earlier case concerning the repayment of an indemnity which had been paid in error (see Judgment 1111, under 5). Although the instant case concerns a somewhat different issue, it is likewise appropriate to consider that the decision in question, which stems from a factual error, could not create any rights and that the competent authority was therefore entitled to reverse it at any time. Indeed, the opposite would be liable to conflict not only with the interests of the organisation concerned but also with the principle of equal treatment of officials, insofar as it could, in some extreme cases, result in preposterous individual decisions reached by pure oversight becoming final."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1111
Keywords:
decision; equal treatment; individual decision; intention of parties; mistake of fact; organisation's interest; promotion; right;
Consideration 12
Extract:
"Although in theory the President of the Office may grant promotions at his or her discretion, the Tribunal's case law has it that, in view of the crucial role assigned to the Promotion Board in the procedure laid down in Article 49 of the Service Regulations and various subsequent guidelines, the President may promote someone only on the Board's recommendation (see Judgments 1600, under 10, and 1968, under 16 and 17). Thus, even if it is assumed that the President of the Office had the authority to appoint an official to grade A5, not by the usual procedures but in the context of the annual promotion exercise, such a promotion would have been lawful only if it rested on a prior recommendation to that effect from the Board."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 49 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1600, 1968
Keywords:
condition; decision; individual decision; promotion; promotion board; recommendation;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"In accordance with these principles, an individual decision affecting an official becomes binding on the organisation which has taken it and thus creates rights for the person concerned as soon as it has been notified to him or her in the manner prescribed by the applicable rules (see, for example, Judgments 2112, under 7(a), and 2201, under 4). As a general rule, such a decision may therefore be reversed only if two conditions are satisfied: the decision must be unlawful and it must not yet have become final (see Judgments 994, under 14, or 1006, under 2). Furthermore, where an individual decision does not create rights, provided that the principle of good faith is respected, it may be reversed at any time (see Judgment 587, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 587, 994, 1006, 2112, 2201
Keywords:
applicable law; binding character; condition; decision; good faith; individual decision; promotion; repeal; right; withdrawal of decision;
Consideration 17
Extract:
"The various paths to promotion within an international organisation such as the EPO are regulated by complex rules with which the staff cannot be assumed to be fully conversant and it is plainly up to the Organisation to ensure that the decisions which it takes in this respect are lawful."
Keywords:
organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; promotion; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2869
108th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant, a staff union representative, challenged the Agency's decision not to promote him in the course of the 2007 promotion exercise. He claimed that he was among the most senior staff eligible for promotion and that the Administration had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision. The Tribunal found in his favour.
"[T]he present situation has the appearance of an abuse of discretion. The complainant's situation is extreme (i.e. being promoted much less frequently than the average) yet there has been no valid reason given for the continued nonpromotion. According to Eurocontrol's reasoning, without a breach of procedure or obvious flaw, the Agency does not have to explain its decisions. This is not correct. Precedent has it that "there is no rule or principle of law that requires the Director-General to state in so many words just why he has turned someone down for promotion or appointment. What matters is that, if the official asks, the reasons must be revealed. Otherwise the Tribunal may not exercise its power of review and determine whether the reasons are lawful and the decision sound" (see Judgment 1355, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1355
Keywords:
abuse of power; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; misuse of authority; promotion; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union activity;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"[I]t is not enough that the decision may be reasonable and in good faith; it must also appear to be reasonable and in good faith. [...] [A]ll decisions regarding the promotion or non-promotion of staff union representatives must be, and must appear to be, made impartially so as to avoid any hint of preference or prejudice."
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; discretion; equal treatment; good faith; judicial review; misuse of authority; promotion; respect for dignity; staff representative; staff union activity;
Judgment 2859
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Regarding the allegation of unequal treatment between external and internal candidates, the Tribunal notes that as the situation of the former is different to that of the latter in fact and in law, there is no ground for that allegation."
Keywords:
candidate; equal treatment; grade; internal candidate; promotion;
Judgment 2835
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is well established that an organisation has a wide discretion in relation to the appointment and promotion of staff. For this reason, these decisions are subject to limited review. That is, the Tribunal will only interfere if the decision was taken without authority; if it was based on an error of law or fact, some material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority (see Judgments 2060, under 4, and 2457, under 6)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2060, 2457
Keywords:
breach; discretion; judicial review; limits; promotion;
Consideration 14
Extract:
"[T]here is nothing inherently wrong with the promotion of a candidate having less seniority where specific skills are required for a position."
Keywords:
candidate; criteria; equal treatment; promotion; qualifications; seniority;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
